Obviously, the best outcome would be for the SCOTUS to rule that the 2A protects an individual right, which cannot be abridged by and government institution.

However, I think the most likely outcome will be a split decision: yes the 2A is an individual right, but the government has the authority to place "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership. This would, of course, mean that we will be debating "reasonable" restrictions far into the future.

Still even that would be a win for us.

"If it wasn't for the voices in my head, I'd go insane from loneliness."

- Me, Myself and I

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

``We are nervous,'' said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington-based group that chose not to join the city in asking the court to hear the case. Helmke said in an interview the case might produce a 5-4 decision, with swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy determining the outcome.

And well he should be. If I were Paul, I'd be worried about the gravy train coming to its last stop too.

If they say "reasonable", they need to be specific with intent clearly described.

They should do that, but I think it's unlikely.

I'm also mildly concerned that they're going to overturn DC's ban because it prohibits all functional firearms. Daley can then say, "see? see? We still allow people to register certain long guns, and we don't have a storage requirement, so Chicago's ordinance is perfectly reasonable."

So what would be the most favorable outcome of the SCOTUS ruling and what is the most likley outcome?

the most favorable outcome would be an unequivocal statement that the 2A protects an individual right and that right is incorporated (meaning it applies to the states as well), and that any prior restraint has to be looked at with strict scrutiny.

the most likely outcome is some narrow ruling that the 2A protects an individual right and that the DC laws in question violate that right.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

And here's the NRA statement. I certainly hope they're going to lay off the legislative remedy for a while now.

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear First Second Amendment Case Since 1939

Fairfax, Va. - The United States Supreme Court today announced itsdecision to take up District of Columbia v. Heller-a case in whichplaintiffs challenge the unconstitutional gun ban in the nation'scapital. The District of Columbia appealed a lower court's rulingearlier this year affirming that the Second Amendment of theConstitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, andthat the District's bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home,and possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense violatethat right.

The NRA will participate in this case through briefs as a friend of thecourt. Oral arguments are likely to take place in early 2008.

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that"[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and inlight of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right inquestion is individual." The D.C. Circuit also rejected the claim thatthe Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia becauseD.C. is not a state.

The decision marks the first time a Second Amendment challenge to afirearm law has reached the Supreme Court since 1939.

And here's the Brady version. Shockingly, it involves a plea for more money:

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment CaseWe need your help to defend America's gun laws

Brady Gun Law Defense Fund [image]Dear Matthew,

Just minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take what could be the most significant Second Amendment case in our country's history.

Thanks to your support, your Brady legal team had already begun preparing for this announcement, but now our lawyers have swung into high gear to prepare our "friend of the court" brief.

We have a tidal wave of work to do in the weeks ahead and we need your help now.

This fight is so critical that we need to raise $50,000 by November 30. And since your gift will be going to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, it will be fully tax deductible!

Earlier this year, a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a gun law as violating the Second Amendment for the first time in American history. We believe this decision was judicial activism at its worst and was clearly wrong.

This legal case at its very core is the most important battle we have ever waged. The U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a terribly erroneous decision and make it clear that the American people can adopt restrictions on firearms in their communities.

If the Supreme Court does not reverse the federal appeals court decision, gun laws everywhere could be at risk…

…to your local and state laws…like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style Assault Weapons… and many more.

If that happens, then your Brady Center will defend these laws in the courts as we have done so many times in the past against the attacks of the gun lobby. But now we must focus on the immediate challenge at hand as we prepare for the fight in the U.S. Supreme Court. Please give generously.

Sincerely,Sarah's Signature (100x43)Sarah Brady, Chair

P.S. I cannot stress how important your gift is to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Please give a tax-deductible gift today.

(As an aside, why the heck are donations to the Bradys tax deductible, but gifts to the NRA/ISRA aren't?)

After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

The city of Washington’s appeal (District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290) is expected to be heard in March — slightly more than a year after the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the right is a personal one, at least to have a gun for self-defense in one’s own home. (The Court took no action on Tuesday on a conditional cross-petition, Parker, et al., v. District of Columbia, 07-335, an appeal by five District residents seeking to join in the case. The absence of any action may mean that the Court has decided not to hear that case. If that is so, it will be indicated in an order next Monday. The Court also may simply be holding the case until it decides the Heller case.)

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer in Heller. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.

The Court did not mention any other issues that it might address as questions of its jurisdiction to reach the ultimate question: did the one individual who was found to have a right to sue — Dick Anthony Heller, a D.C. resident – have a right to challenge all three of the sections of the local law cited in the Court’s order, and, is the District of Columbia, as a federal enclave, even covered by the Second Amendment. While neither of those issues is posed in the grant order, the Court may have to be satisfied that the answer to both is affirmative before it would move on to the substantive question about the scope of any right protected by the Amendment.

(1) Define "militia."
(a.) If they respond "National Guard" "Police Department" "Any government ran organization"
(i.)Have them define what the purpose of a militia is.
(ii.)Then ask how an organization reporting the the government can be relied upon by the American people to oppose a tyrant government.

(b.) If they respond "the American people."
(i.) "No further questions your Honor"

(2) If citizens are not authorized to maintain an "organized militia" (i.e. "A well regulated militia"), how can the Second Amendment be construed as NOT being violated?

(3) How is a "well regulated militia" defined? By whom (cannot be by any person affiliated with state or federal governments)?

Those are my main question. Notice, I prefer the answer listed under (1) (b.)

I gave an oath when I enlisted in the United States Navy,

"...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Though I may no longer be enlisted, and no longer have an obligation to the U.S. Navy, I still have a moral obligation to my country, my freedom, and the protection of my family.

I will stand by that oath for as long as I live.

Freedom's not free, the day we quit fighting for it is the day we will loose it.

(1) Define "militia." (a.) If they respond "National Guard" "Police Department" "Any government ran organization" (i.)Have them define what the purpose of a militia is. (ii.)Then ask how an organization reporting the the government can be relied upon by the American people to oppose a tyrant government.

(b.) If they respond "the American people." (i.) "No further questions your Honor"

(2) If citizens are not authorized to maintain an "organized militia" (i.e. "A well regulated militia"), how can the Second Amendment be construed as NOT being violated?

(3) How is a "well regulated militia" defined? By whom (cannot be by any person affiliated with state or federal governments)?

Those are my main question. Notice, I prefer the answer listed under (1) (b.)

In my learned opinion, the purpose clause of the Second Amendment does not modify the independent clause, "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," which refers to an existing fundamental right that inures to the benefit of each individual citizen of the realm.

Time and the United States Supreme Court will determine whether or not I am right.

Let's assume for a moment that the outcome is in favor of the people, and that it confirms what we have believed all along, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed." Therefore nullifying any and all regulatory gun restrictions. Then what? Would it mean unrestricted CCW nationwide? No more "cool down" periods? Could it in turn allow convicted felons and the mentally ill to legally obtain firearms? Could it lead to mass chaos in the beginning for concern of "How long will it last" mentality? This is based on the assumption of an "all or none" end result of course.

While I do believe the 2nd amendment means that the people have the right to do exactly what it says, but in my experience (the short 25 years I've been around), I have seen that society can be unpredictable it certain situations. I do believe that there should be MINIMAL restrictions to prevent those who lack the mental capability to understand the effects of using a firearm, and specific felons from obtaining one. I do agree with drug addicts being prevented access to firearms for a period of time (i.e. when they are using, but may have theirs rights reinstated after they have been clean for a number of years.)

Just a couple concerns, as for the majority of the population, I do believe that have the second amendment right affirmed as stated above would result in a kinder, more respectful society. But my concerns lie in the fact that a number of generations have been raised in THIS society, the one who has had limitations for nearly 70 years. I have similar concerns when it comes down to my idea that currency worldwide should become a thing of the past...end result could be beneficial to all, but the road to get there shouldn't be started and completed in the same week...Do you follow me on that?

Maybe I'm just blowing smoke, but I thought this would be a good place to get some reassurance.

I gave an oath when I enlisted in the United States Navy,

"...to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Though I may no longer be enlisted, and no longer have an obligation to the U.S. Navy, I still have a moral obligation to my country, my freedom, and the protection of my family.

I will stand by that oath for as long as I live.

Freedom's not free, the day we quit fighting for it is the day we will loose it.

Gun control advocates worry that the court's action will embolden gun rights advocates. Dennis A. Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun violence argues, "The whole purpose of the litigation is to achieve a Supreme Court precedent that they will use to attack many other laws."

Of course the will. I hear the chat on this forum and many want to use the DC case to start working on Chicago. What it tells me is they are scared. I so think the Supreme Court is also scared of this as well. The Brady Campaign for the prevention of gun ownership do not want this case to be heard before the presidential elections, because that would mean that gun control would be on center stage again in the elections.

Many of the democrats don't want that, especially Hilary Clinton, because many of them want the swing voters and gun control ad their stance on it would not help them at all. The main question is do republicans feel the same way. I think Gulliani and Romni would be in the same boat as the democrats. So there may be an effort to delay this proceding until after the elections by both sides of politics.

And here's the NRA statement. I certainly hope they're going to lay off the legislative remedy for a while now.

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear First Second Amendment Case Since 1939

Fairfax, Va. - The United States Supreme Court today announced itsdecision to take up District of Columbia v. Heller-a case in whichplaintiffs challenge the unconstitutional gun ban in the nation'scapital. The District of Columbia appealed a lower court's rulingearlier this year affirming that the Second Amendment of theConstitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, andthat the District's bans on handguns, carrying firearms within the home,and possession of loaded or operable firearms for self-defense violatethat right.

The NRA will participate in this case through briefs as a friend of thecourt. Oral arguments are likely to take place in early 2008.

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that"[T]he phrase 'the right of the people,' when read intratextually and inlight of Supreme Court precedent, leads us to conclude that the right inquestion is individual." The D.C. Circuit also rejected the claim thatthe Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia becauseD.C. is not a state.

The decision marks the first time a Second Amendment challenge to afirearm law has reached the Supreme Court since 1939.

And here's the Brady version. Shockingly, it involves a plea for more money:

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment CaseWe need your help to defend America's gun laws

Brady Gun Law Defense Fund [image]Dear Matthew,

Just minutes ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take what could be the most significant Second Amendment case in our country's history.

Thanks to your support, your Brady legal team had already begun preparing for this announcement, but now our lawyers have swung into high gear to prepare our "friend of the court" brief.

We have a tidal wave of work to do in the weeks ahead and we need your help now.

This fight is so critical that we need to raise $50,000 by November 30. And since your gift will be going to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund, it will be fully tax deductible!

Earlier this year, a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a gun law as violating the Second Amendment for the first time in American history. We believe this decision was judicial activism at its worst and was clearly wrong.

This legal case at its very core is the most important battle we have ever waged. The U.S. Supreme Court has the chance to reverse a terribly erroneous decision and make it clear that the American people can adopt restrictions on firearms in their communities.

If the Supreme Court does not reverse the federal appeals court decision, gun laws everywhere could be at risk…

…to your local and state laws…like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style Assault Weapons… and many more.

If that happens, then your Brady Center will defend these laws in the courts as we have done so many times in the past against the attacks of the gun lobby. But now we must focus on the immediate challenge at hand as we prepare for the fight in the U.S. Supreme Court. Please give generously.

Sincerely,Sarah's Signature (100x43)Sarah Brady, Chair

P.S. I cannot stress how important your gift is to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Please give a tax-deductible gift today.

(As an aside, why the heck are donations to the Bradys tax deductible, but gifts to the NRA/ISRA aren't?)

Come to think about it, I didn't realize that gifts to the NRA/ISRA aren't tax deductible. So your question needs to be address to the proper person(s) in the know.

The following got me....Earlier this year, a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a gun law as violating the Second Amendment for the first time in American history. We believe this decision was judicial activism at its worst and was clearly wrong.

What do you think they will say, if the court rules even further against them? I see spiting saliva out the corner of their mouths.

Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.Richard M Nixon

For I dipped into the Future, far as human eye could see; saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

1842

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Gun control advocates worry that the court's action will embolden gun rights advocates. Dennis A. Henigan of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun violence argues, "The whole purpose of the litigation is to achieve a Supreme Court precedent that they will use to attack many other laws."

Of course the will. I hear the chat on this forum and many want to use the DC case to start working on Chicago. What it tells me is they are scared. I so think the Supreme Court is also scared of this as well. The Brady Campaign for the prevention of gun ownership do not want this case to be heard before the presidential elections, because that would mean that gun control would be on center stage again in the elections.

Many of the democrats don't want that, especially Hilary Clinton, because many of them want the swing voters and gun control ad their stance on it would not help them at all. The main question is do republicans feel the same way. I think Gulliani and Romni would be in the same boat as the democrats. So there may be an effort to delay this proceding until after the elections by both sides of politics.

I have to disagree with the delay! You are right though on the democrat thinking, possible (and) some republicans also.

Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.Richard M Nixon

For I dipped into the Future, far as human eye could see; saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

1842

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

If they say "reasonable", they need to be specific with intent clearly described.

They should do that, but I think it's unlikely.

I'm also mildly concerned that they're going to overturn DC's ban because it prohibits all functional firearms. Daley can then say, "see? see? We still allow people to register certain long guns, and we don't have a storage requirement, so Chicago's ordinance is perfectly reasonable."

If they uphold the Appellate decision, which I'm now cautiously confident they will, I expect there will be some wording in the opinion that will provide guidance as to what they consider "reasonable" insofar as regulation or restriction is concerned.

As far as the Chicago ordinance goes I'm not really worried about it. A SCOTUS ruling upholding the Appellate effectively makes Daley the next target and if you read the whole pos ordinance I personally think 8-20-40 and 8-20-160 as well as a number of other parts opens the door to getting the 2A incorporated after the voyage thru the state and fed district courts.